Scoring quantum use cases before you build them.
The full MERIQ scorecard: a screening gate, five criteria against published anchors, the complete catalogue of thirty-four sub-questions, a weakest-link rule — and five worked assessments in finance and security, including our own flagship, which the rubric holds one level short of pilot-ready.
Free · 16 pages · PDF Written for the person who has to choose which quantum use case to fund, in what order, and knows that a list of candidates is not an answer. Leave an e-mail address below and the download appears immediately.
What is inside
Not a survey of quantum computing. An instrument for deciding, with the arithmetic shown and the awkward answers left in.
An executive one-pager
The gate, the five criteria, the three verdicts and the whole portfolio on a single side — the page you forward to a steering committee.
All five anchor ladders
Every 1–5 anchor worded so that placing a use case is a matter of evidence rather than taste — plus a new anchor note on advantages that are not speedups.
The sub-question catalogue
All thirty-four questions we work through per assessment, and the evidence each one demands. Fifteen are in the public scorer; nineteen appear here for the first time.
Five worked assessments
Four in finance, one in security, scored line by line against the anchors. Two land on an identical 76 and different maturity levels — the cap doing its job.
A validation protocol
The falsifiable prediction the rubric makes, what triggers a re-score, and the failure mode we expect to be caught in. Stated so it can be held against us.
What we withhold, and why
The calibration weights and the benchmark library stay proprietary. We say exactly what they are and where the published layer ends.
The portfolio, in one table
Every score in the whitepaper is defensible against the published anchors — and contestable. That is the point of publishing them.
USE CASE V A D F R SCORE LEVEL BINDING ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Business-risk driver ranking 4 5 4 4 3 80 L3 resources finance · Grover over amplitude estimation datable · 2029–2030 Tail-probability estimation 4 4 4 4 3 76 L3 resources finance · amplitude estimation alone datable · 2029–2030 RSA-2048 cryptanalysis 3 5 5 4 2 76 L2 resources security · Shor · calibration reference datable · early 2030s Sketched streaming fraud 4 3 3 3 3 64 L3 four-way tie finance · oracle sketching + QSVT datable, conditionally Variational QML fraud 4 2 1 3 2 48 L1 data basis finance · amplitude-loaded classifier undatable ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ▶ two cases at 76, one level apart. the cap reads the weakest vertex, not the average — and the same business question spans L1 and L3.
The two fraud cards share an industry, a business question and a dataset. They differ by sixteen points and two maturity levels, and the difference is one research result published in April 2026. Section 5 of the whitepaper works through what moved, what was dragged up behind it, and what did not move at all.
Get the whitepaper
One e-mail address, one consent box, and the PDF is yours — no waiting for a sales call.
Here it is.
The download should have started automatically. If it did not, use the button.
The link stays valid — bookmark it or forward it to a colleague.
Want the rubric run against your own portfolio?
An assessment workshop takes your candidate use cases through the gate, the sub-question catalogue and the three verdicts — with calibrated weights and a benchmarked comparison against our library. You leave with a ranked portfolio, a binding criterion per case, and a horizon that is either dated or explicitly not.
Scoring one of your own use cases in the public scorer takes about three minutes, and if you submit the scorecard we can read it before we ever speak — which makes the first conversation a discussion of your evidence rather than of our method.
Data & privacy
- Nothing is sent until you press the button. This page sets no cookies, runs no analytics and does no tracking.
- Controller. JoS QUANTUM GmbH, Platz der Einheit 2, c/o TechQuartier, 60327 Frankfurt am Main, Germany — info@jos-quantum.de. Full details in the site notice.
- What we process. Your e-mail address, and — only if you fill them in — your name and company. Alongside these we store two technical values for abuse prevention and diagnostics: the page the request came from, and your browser’s user-agent string, truncated. We do not store your IP address in our database.
- Purposes and legal basis. Giving you access to the MERIQ whitepaper, and contacting you by e-mail about MERIQ, related services and assessment workshops. Legal basis is your consent, Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR — given by ticking the box above, withdrawable at any time with effect for the future.
- Processors and recipients. Your details are received and stored on Google Cloud (Cloud Run and Firestore) in region europe-west3 (Frankfurt am Main), under Google’s Cloud Data Processing Addendum (Art. 28 GDPR). Google’s infrastructure logs record the requesting IP address for up to 30 days for operation and abuse prevention; we do not copy it into our database. We do not share your address with any other third party.
- Retention. Until you withdraw consent; reviewed and deleted at the latest 24 months after our last contact with you.
- Your rights. Access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability and objection (Art. 15–21 GDPR); withdrawal of consent at any time via info@jos-quantum.de; complaint to a supervisory authority — for us, the Hessian Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information.
- Third-party loads on this site. Like every page here, this one loads fonts and icons from content-delivery networks (Google Fonts, cdnjs); see the site-wide privacy notice.
Before you download
- Two of the five worked cases are ours. Self-assessment flatters, which is why the anchors are published: so that our scores can be re-scored against us. The flagship is held one level short of pilot-ready by a criterion we cannot engineer around.
- The calibration weights are not in the document. The whitepaper publishes the model — gate, criteria, anchors, sub-questions, cap, horizon logic. The weights that turn sub-answers into criterion scores, and the benchmark library that keeps a 4 meaning the same thing across quarters, are what an engagement adds.
- Resource scores have a time derivative. The machine classes and roadmap dates are 2026 statements. Horizons are envelopes, not forecasts.
- Version 1.0 covers finance and security. Energy use cases are in assessment and are held for v1.1 rather than sketched on thin evidence.